tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-98592492024-03-07T11:20:07.372-08:00Ben's LawBen's Law = the collective wit and wisdom of me.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.comBlogger172125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-42298324702793008402020-08-14T18:58:00.000-07:002020-08-14T18:58:10.083-07:00First conviction in Obamagate. Many more need to come.<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Today was the first indictment by John Durham’s
investigation into the Obama administration and Deep State’s illegal spying on the
Trump campaign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An Obama-era FBI lawyer,
Kevin Clinesmith, hired by the FBI in July 2015, is expected to plead guilty to
a charge of making a false statement in connection with the FBI’s application
for a fourth FISA warrant to continue spying on Carter Page, a member of Trump’s
campaign team.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let me explain why this
is a BIG DEAL.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, what did Kevin Clinesmith do?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The context will be explained below, but Kevin
Clinesmith took an email he had received from the CIA that said Carter Page <u>had
been</u> a source of intelligence information for the CIA, doctored the email
from the CIA to say that Carter Page was “not a ‘source,’” and forwarded that
doctored email to a Supervisory Special Agent within the FBI in order to obtain
a FISA warrant to continue spying on Carter Page.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second, who is Carter Page?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Carter Page is a former Navy officer and was affiliated with Trump’s campaign
as a foreign policy advisor in 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Carter
Page’s career had involved “ties” to Russia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Duh.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s what foreign policy
people do – talk to foreigners.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the foreign
policy business, foreign countries try to recruit Americans to turn traitor and
spy for them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course Russia does
this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Russia tried to recruit Carter
Page in 2013.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, Carter Page was
actually a CIA asset and reported to the CIA on Russian intelligence actions
against the United States between 2008 and 2013.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To spy on an American citizen, you must have probable cause
of a crime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See U.S. Constitution,
Fourth Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having no probable
cause Carter Page committed any crime, the Obama Administration alleged Carter
Page was suspected of being a traitorous spy working <u>for</u> Russia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That way, they could get a warrant from the “FISA”
court, i.e., “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” to spy on Carter Page
and, hence, within the Trump campaign (i.e., tap his phones, bug his office,
use his cellphone with the cooperation of Google and Apple to record without
his knowledge, etc.).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You still need <i>evidence</i> to present to the FISA court,
the “FISC,” to support the government’s suspicion that Carter Page was a
Russian agent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Carter Page being a
foreign policy expert had, of course, been to Russia and talked with Russians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> He did so in patriotic duty to the United States. </span>Obama’s FBI spun these Russia contacts into
suspicion that Carter Page had turned traitor.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The FISA court is secret.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The suspect doesn’t get a say in whether a warrant issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This imposes upon the government seeking a
FISA warrant a duty of complete candor to the FISC judge, to provide all material
information, including evidence that contradicts or exonerates the suspicion
that an American is a foreign agent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Obama’s FBI knew that Carter Page was in fact a CIA source
providing the United States with intelligence on Russian agents working against
the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The CIA told Obama’s
FBI that Carter Page was in fact an American CIA source of intelligence in a
written memo in August 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nonetheless, Obama’s FBI sought a FISA warrant to authorize
spying on Carter Page in October 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
FISA warrant application <u>omitted the fact that Carter Page had worked for
the CIA</u>, providing the CIA with intelligence <i>against</i> Russia, from
2008 to 2013.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> This fact would explain Carter Page's contacts with Russians as opposed to leaving the FISC judge with no other explanation. </span>The FBI filed three more
FISA warrant applications seeking to continue spying on Carter Page, both
before and after Trump’s inauguration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>None
of these FISA applications disclosed to the FISC judge that Carter Page was in
fact an American source providing intelligence <i>to</i> America <i>against</i>
Russia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who signed these FISA applications?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana
Boente and Rod Rosenstein.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now to today’s indictment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Obama-era FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was part of the process within the
FBI to obtain the fourth and final FISA warrant against Carter Page.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By that time, June 2017, the Muller
Investigation was in full swing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Carter
Page had publicly announced that he had been an intelligence source for the
United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This public announcement
caused the FBI to once again ask the CIA whether Carter Page had ever been a
CIA source.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kevin Clinesmith’s supervisor, a so-called “Supervisory
Special Agent” (“SSA”) that the criminal information doesn’t name, asked him to
confirm with the CIA whether Carter Page had ever been an intelligence source
for the CIA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Kevin Clinesmith then emailed
the CIA and asked them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this email, Kevin
Clinesmith acknowledged, “There is an indication that [Carter Page] may be a ‘[digraph]’
source.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a fact we would need to
disclose in our next FISA renewal.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(A “digraph”
is a two-letter acronym the CIA uses to describe what type of intelligence
source a person is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The public criminal
information against Kevin Clinesmith doesn’t specify the two-letter acronym,
which is apparently super-secret CIA code.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The CIA emailed Kevin Clinesmith back and said Carter Page <u>was</u> a former
CIA source, and referenced the earlier August 2016 memo the CIA had provided to
the FBI when it opened the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation against the Trump
campaign.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kevin Clinesmith then exchanged a series of text messages
with his SSA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In these texts, Kevin
Clinesmith said that the CIA confirmed Carter Page was merely a “subsource,” “was
never a source” and “CIA confirmed explicitly he was never a source.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The SSA asked whether Kevin Clinesmith got
that from the CIA in writing. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Kevin
Clinesmith texted back that the CIA did put it in writing, and forwarded the
email he had received by the CIA to the SSA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><u>Kevin Clinesmith doctored that email</u>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We all know that when you forward an email
using Outlook, you can edit the text of the email you are forwarding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Kevin Clinesmith inserted the words “and not
a ‘source’” into the CIA’s email to him, then forwarded that doctored email to the
SSA after falsely telling him the CIA had confirmed Carter Page was never a CIA
source.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of this doctored email,
the FBI SSA believed the CIA had confirmed Carter Page was not an intelligence source
for the United States, despite his public pronouncements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, the fourth and last FISA application seeking
an extension of the warrant to continue spying on Carter Page omitted the fact
that Carter Page had been a CIA source of foreign intelligence information
against Russia.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Who is Kevin Clinesmith?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A flat-out traitor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After Trump’s
election, he texted another FBI lawyer, Sally Moyer, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“I’m just devastated. I can’t wait until I can
leave today and just shut off the world for the next four days.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“I just can’t imagine the systematic disassembly
of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the
rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like
there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This
is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to
deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is
stupid.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->“Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal
documents investigating his staff.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->When asked by Moyer, “Is it making you rethink
your commitment to the Trump administration?” Kevin Clinesmith replied, “Hell
no.” and then added, “<u>Viva le resistance</u>.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In sum, a traitorous Obama-era FBI lawyer intentionally
doctored an email he received from the CIA in order to continue illegally spying
on a member of Trump’s campaign team.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
is about to plead guilty to this heinous crime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Yahoo! and CNN are not covering the story, but to their credit, MSNBC
and the New York Times do have this story on their front web pages.<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-32526883920708077712016-10-12T14:38:00.000-07:002016-10-12T14:47:57.023-07:00Hillary for Prison!This is from a recent Congressional hearing with Trey Gowdy asking FBI Director Comey why he did not recommend indicting Hillary:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Comey: “I think we’d
have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a general awareness of the unlawfulness
of your conduct; you knew you were doing something you shouldn’t do.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Gowdy: “The way to
prove that is whether or not someone took steps to conceal or destroy what they’ve
done. That is the best evidence you have
that they knew it was wrong – that they lied about it.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Comey: “It’s awfully…it’s
very good evidence. I’ll always want to
look at what the subject said about their conduct.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, you have to be a complete moron not to believe that Hillary knew what she was doing was illegal. Or, alternatively, you must believe that <i>Hillary</i> is a complete moron who somehow served as a U.S. Senator for eight years and was approved by the same Senate as Secretary of State without knowing basic classified information and e-security protocols, let alone laws on simply maintaining government records.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Under the relevant statutes, she didn't even have to know <i>for sure </i>she was breaking the law, she just had to have a "general awareness of the unlawfulness of [her] conduct." Given the evidence, Hillary's "general awareness" is utterly certain, easily proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Comey knows this. Everyone knows this.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hillary is guilty as sin. The system is corrupt through and through. The elites are no longer bound by the rule of law and they know it. The whole rotten structure needs gutting. If Hillary gets to the White House and pays nothing for her felonies, guess what will happen?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-25531529675688385222015-12-08T14:49:00.000-08:002015-12-08T14:49:08.448-08:00Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is not "science" - yetA friend of mine posed the following question on Facebook:<br /><br /><br />"So, an honest favor request for climate change skeptics, non-believers, deniers, however you choose to self identify... I ask this out of true curiosity. I ask in the spirit of honest debate.<br /><br />A topic exists that in your mind is still open for debate... Ok, I get that. I even lived there for a while.<br /><br />The question is this: Is there any authority that could sway your position on climate change? Who could speak out (publish, document, whatever) and what would they say to change your mind on this topic?"<br /><br /><br />I responded with the correct answer, which I now post below:<br /> <br />"Extremely simple. It doesn't matter who says what. It only matters that someone makes a prediction and that prediction comes to pass, and is repeatably confirmed by subsequent observations that I myself may observe. A patent clerk from Switzerland said light would bend around a massive object because gravity warps space, and predicted the resulting observation of distant stars' light bending around the sun during an eclipse. It didn't matter what credentials Einstein had. His theory made a testable prediction that was verified by observation, and has continually been re-verified by subsequent observations. Catastrophic AGW proponents have NEVER made a prediction that was confirmed via a testable observation. Until someone does, nothing any of them says holds any weight whatsoever. In fact, the opposite is true: every prediction the catastrophic AGW crowd has made has not been observed - no theory predicted the 18-hear hiatus on rising global temperatures - and thus every theory thus far hypothesized has been falsified. The motto of the very first scientific society, The Royal Society of which Isaac Newton was a founding member, is "Nullius in Verba" - take nobody's word for it. Any scientific theory must be demonstrated by actual observation of phenomena predicted by the theory. That is science. The question you have posed - whose word will skeptics accept - is anti-science. Practicing scientists know this, so if any of them ever pose the same question, or makes any appeal to authority - i.e., asks us to trust someone's word - they are willfully anti-science and necessarily fraudulent. So I now turn around and pose to you this scientific question: what potential observation will disprove the catastrophic AGW hypothesis? I have NEVER heard any catastrophic AGW adherent answer that question. If someone has, please direct me to it."<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let me append to this an additional comment. With Einstein's Theory of Special (or General) Relativity, many if not most testable observations are beyond the every day experience of the average person as they only differ in predictions from Newton's laws (which are easily testable by the average person) at extreme (short or long) distances and/or velocities. To observe the differences in predictions between Einstein and Newton's theories, one generally needs special equipment. So most of us, including me, generally take the scientific consensus' word for it, knowing we could test these predictions ourselves if need be, and glory and fame would come to us if we discovered Einstein was wrong. Any AGW theory is making a testable prediction about the weather, which anyone can observe by walking outside, which means no one has to take the word of scientists to observe an AGW theory's predictions. The sea level rises or it doesn't (it hasn't). The weather outside one's house gets progressively hotter every year (on average) or it doesn't (for 18 years, it hasn't).</div>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-71667346238544100792015-01-07T15:19:00.001-08:002015-01-07T15:19:05.509-08:00Ann Barnhardt's burning of the Koran needs to be linked to today<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LCLDjPNpf4" target="_blank">Watch and learn</a>.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-22386377827723393872015-01-07T10:45:00.000-08:002015-01-07T10:45:15.541-08:00RIP Charlie Hebdo martyrs<img src="http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608003383381786874&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0" /><br />
<img src="http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608003383381786874&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0" /><br />
<img src="http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608003383381786874&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0" /><br />
<img src="http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608003383381786874&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0" />Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-41983173659673958942014-12-18T12:38:00.003-08:002014-12-18T12:38:48.569-08:00"Narrative Collapse" is the point<div class="MsoNormal">
Though there have been many instances of “<a href="http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2014-09-20.html" target="_blank">narrative collapse</a>”
in the last few months, I haven’t seen anyone express the truly cynical view
for the cause of these instances. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The charitable explanation is that our leftist overlords are
just stupid, and too wishful to excoriate the Great White Defendant, for doing
things the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6c_dinY3fM" target="_blank">narrative</a>” says are common, but in reality hardly ever occur. Accordingly, because they believe the “narrative,”
they are too gullible to doubt or even casually investigate the initial reports
by “victims” or bystanders who proclaim some “crime” that fits the “narrative.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is becoming too common in my view to be chalked up to
stupidity – or at least the stupidity of the <a href="https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/the-cathedral-and-the-hivemind/" target="_blank">Cathedral</a>. No, it is much more sinister. I believe these “narrative collapse”
incidents are manufactured <i>precisely because those
pushing the initial story know the facts will not match the initial reports.</i> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This makes sense when you understand the people for whom
these “narrative collapse” events are manufactured are not the public at large,
but the various "victim" groups under the Democrat/leftist umbrella. Those groups – made up of gullible people who
are fundamentalist believers of the “narrative” – will religiously believe the
initial reports because they believe the “narrative” and will not believe the
true facts when they come out, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Thus, when “the system” fails to convict or
punish the accused, this will prove (to the
gullible/fundamentalist "victim" groups) the “system” is broken and in need of radical
change. This is the true goal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The hive-mind media is still run by a few elites at the top
that can kill – or manufacture – any story they wish. These elites count on the gullibility of their
on-the-street (or more accurately, either “drive-by” or staring at a computer
screen) foot-soldier media to believe and push a story the elites know will ultimately
be proven false. The elites only push
stories that will eventually result in “narrative collapse” because if they
pushed a <i>true</i> story that fit the
narrative, the “system” would likely result in a conviction and justice. That would be worse for the “narrative.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In other words, if a story came out of a racist white cop
killing an unarmed black man with his arms up saying “don’t shoot” and that cop
<i>was tried and convicted by the system</i>,
the “system” obviously isn't broken and is in no need of change. Whites in general will be shown to disapprove
of this behavior and capable of punishing the wrongdoer. Thus, the behavior of this one racist white
cop, who was appropriately punished by the "system," will not advance the “narrative” that <i>all</i>
whites are secretly racists, plotting the oppression of the “other.” Democrat "victim" groups might question the "narrative" that all whites are racists and the "system" is a construct to perpetuate "white privilege."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But if the “system” fails to punish the allegedly racist white cop,
who is obviously guilty based on the initial reports that the Democrats’ "victim" groups believe without question, only then does the incident become proof of
the “narrative” and keep those deliberately enstupidated Democrat voters on the
plantation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-70080967174614123312013-08-07T18:08:00.000-07:002013-08-13T16:00:19.573-07:00To believe the MSM is not liberal one must have a mental disorderFrom my mom (Hi mom!), I was provided a link to the following Daily Kos article: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/07/1229087/-15-things-everyone-would-know-if-there-were-a-liberal-media#" target="_blank">15 things everyone would know if there were a liberal media</a>. These 15 things are all either untrue, repeatedly covered by the <a href="http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/the-inner-workings-of-the-cathedral/" target="_blank">Cathedral</a>, so obscure or out dated as to be un-newsworthy. I can only adequately respond to it here, so here we go:<br />
<br />
<u>1. Where the jobs went</u> – A simple <a href="https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=bbeb0e7af669406a&q=lost+manufacturing+jobs">Google search of “lost manufacturing jobs”</a> brought up articles by US News, LA Times, CNN Money, NBC, and many others within the past year. Would a liberal media really want to highlight lost low-skill jobs while Obama is pushing for amnesty for 20 million low-skill illegal immigrants?<br />
<br />
<u>2. Upward wealth distribution and/or inequality</u> – Did Daily Kos forget the Occupy Wall Street/We are the 99% nonsense that the MSM covered day and night for a year?<br />
<br />
<u>3. ALEC</u> – Liberals have their special interest groups that draft proposed legislation and hand it to legislators, who then submit it and vote on it without reading it (e.g., Obamacare). They have way more than conservatives. I know this first hand as I saw it while working for the Pete Wilson administration.<br />
<br />
<u>4. The number of people in prison</u> – Coming to a street corner near you: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/02/justice/california-inmates-release/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/02/justice/california-inmates-release/index.html</a><br />
<br />
<u>5. The number of black people in prison</u> – A liberal media would conceal this fact, not heavily report it. Reporting it would lead people to believe <a href="http://www.ronunz.org/2013/07/20/race-and-crime-in-america/" target="_blank">hate facts</a>.<br />
<br />
<u>6. U.S. health costs are the highest in the world</u> – As if PBS never reported this OECD study: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html">http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html</a>. Second, the idea is false. To take the average per capita spent on health care and say the “costs” equal that amount is nonsense. U.S. car purchase costs are the highest in the world. Why? Because we’re wealthier so purchases of super cars raises the average, and the average American can afford a better car, so they but a better car. Of course Somalia spends next to nothing on health care. They have crappy health care. Other western nations ration health care so their citizens get less of it, and at worse quality.<br />
<br />
<u>7. Glass-Steagall</u> – As if Dodd-Frank never passed.<br />
<br />
<u>8. Gerrymandering</u> – Both sides do it shamelessly. Note California isn’t on dipshit’s list. Jerry Brown beat Meg Whitman <a href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-general/ssov/governor-summary.pdf" target="_blank">54% to 41%</a>, yet Democrats hold over 66% of the state assembly and senate offices.<br />
<br />
<u>9. The number of bills blocked by Republicans in Congress</u> – How often did the MSM report that the Democrat-controlled Senate and House failed to pass a budget in 2010 and the Democrat-controlled Senate simply refused to take up Republican-controlled House budget resolutions in 2011 and 2012? That’s right. <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2013/03/22/pbs-congress-hasn-t-passed-budget-years-fails-call-out-democratic-sena" target="_blank">Never</a>.<br />
<br />
<u>10. The <i>Citizens United</i> Supreme Court decision</u> – The MSM heavily reported it when it came out – three and a half years ago. Obama mentioned it in his State of the Union Speech, to which Justice Alito responded (quite correctly) “Not true.” Within the past year, multiple MSM news sources reported <a href="https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=39aa1df25dc11213&q=Pelosi+constitutional+amendment+Citizens+United" target="_blank">Nancy Pelosi’s vow</a> to seek a constitutional amendment overturning the decision. Will the MSM run similar stories on the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375920447&sr=8-1&keywords=liberty+amendments" target="_blank">Liberty Amendments</a>? Of course not. [UPDATE: The Liberty Amendments is the #1 book on Amazon. A simple <a href="https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&ei=WroKUvvDM6Xt2wXc24C4AQ&fp=6e1d72aaf09fa785&q=%22The+Liberty+Amendments%22&sa=N&start=0" target="_blank">Google search</a> shows that no MSM outlet has published a story or reviewed the book.]<br />
<br />
<u>11. Nixon’s Southern Strategy</u> – The MSM doesn't adequately report on the Presidential election of 1968? Are you kidding me? <br />
<br />
<u>12. Tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthy</u> – To accurately report this fact, the MSM would also have to report that the “rich” – which I’ll call the wealthiest 10% – <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html" target="_blank">pay more than 70% of all income taxes</a>, and that this percentage has grown over the past 30 years. Also, the bottom 47% don’t pay any income tax whatsoever (another “hate fact” accurately stated by Mitt Romney). When you only tax the productive, a cut in the tax necessarily only benefits the productive.<br />
<br />
<u>13. What’s happening to the bees</u>? – Are honey prices sky high? Are agriculture product prices sky high? Is this really one of the top 15 facts the world must know now? The MSM demonizes bees? Bee Movie?<br />
<br />
<u>14. The impact of temporary workers on our economy</u> – Does this moron mean illegal immigrants? Or perhaps the fact that <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time" target="_blank">77% of new jobs created in 2013 were part-time in order to escape Obamacare regulations</a>? Yea, a liberal media would totally do an in depth report on that. Not.<br />
<br />
<u>15.Media consolidation</u> – Liberals like big media conglomerates that are too big to fail. Liberals like the cozy relationship between the government and General Electric, the parent company of NBC, CNBC and MSNBC. And as if the MSM never, ever mentions the media empire of Rupert Murdoch, or the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson.<br />
<br />
<br />
The inescapable conclusion is that Daily Kos thinks the media isn’t liberal because it reports liberal lies slightly less often as Daily Kos would like.<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-526336372835908782013-07-18T13:15:00.002-07:002013-07-18T13:16:10.886-07:00The LA Times is right. The Zimmerman verdict should be a wake-up call to the black community.<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">Just not how the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0718-zimmerman-20130718,0,5099165.story" target="_blank">LA Times</a>, or NAACP, understand it. And that is the problem. (Necessary caveat: when I refer to "blacks" or the "black community" I am obviously not referring to <u>all</u> blacks; rather, I am using the term in the same sense as </span><span style="background-color: white;">Martin Luther King III is in his speech to the NAACP.)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">The black community needs to learn they cannot act like thug gangstas without consequences. Black parents need to learn they must do something to prevent their children from embracing the thug/gangsta lifestyle of drugs and violence, starting with having children only after getting married and then staying married to raise them. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">The black community needs to learn that when a child is given multiple school suspensions for violence and burglary, that child needs to be carefully watched and disciplined Black parents need to learn that, when a "troubled" youth like Trayvon moves to a new neighborhood because of multiple school suspensions, they should alert the neighbors to his presence and specifically ask the neighbors to watch him and report back to his parents if they see Trayvon misbehaving. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Trayvon's parents should then have told Trayvon they asked for their neighbors' help keeping Trayvon out of trouble. This is how CIVILIZED people and communities behave. It is entirely Trayvon and his parents' fault that this incident occurred. The black community needs to realize this if future incidents are to be avoided.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Black "leaders" are telling the "black community" the exact wrong lesson to be learned from this incident, and that is a shame. It is also intentional, because those black "leaders" have a financial incentive to make their community believe nothing is their fault, but is solely the fault of white racism, for which they must give money and power to black "leaders" to combat.</span></span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-90577647579934717932013-07-16T13:17:00.000-07:002013-07-16T13:19:00.080-07:00George Zimmerman is a heroMost of the post-Zimmerman verdict commentary I've seen, at least in the professional media (both left and right), has agreed there was reasonable doubt according to the evidence actually presented in the actual trial, since there obviously was. But most of this commentary has also claimed Zimmerman acted inappropriately. A typical example of this line of thought is from <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html" target="_blank">this article</a> in Slate by William Saletan. The general criticisms of Zimmerman's behavior that night argue he never should have gotten out of his car, never should have followed Trayvon, or indeed, never should have thought Trayvon was doing anything suspicious enough to warrant calling the police. These criticisms are wrong and demonstrate the larger <a href="http://takimag.com/article/white_people_are_pussies_john_derbyshire#axzz25pq8tLIT" target="_blank">pussification of America</a>.<br />
<br />
According to the left, no American should ever act in self defense. All threats should be addressed by calling the police and acting as passively as possible towards any aggressors until the police arrive. According to the right, at least in theory, we are all free Americans with the right to enjoy our liberties against lawbreakers. People who are acting suspiciously should be confronted by any free American male, asked their business, and if no satisfactory answer is given, appropriately followed and reported to the police. This is how crime is <u>prevented</u>. Thugs should most definitely not have free reign to wander around preparing to commit crimes. Is it dangerous to do this? Of course. But this is why we have the Second Amendment.<br />
<br />
This brings up the key issue in the Zimmerman case: that fateful night, was Trayvon acting suspiciously enough to warrant Zimmerman following him and calling the police? Most definitely <u>yes</u>. Accordingly, it was right, just and good for Zimmerman to call the police and follow Trayvon to accurately report his location and monitor his activities.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html" target="_blank">Zimmerman's call to the police</a>, "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." After identifying Trayvon's race and clothing, after being asked by the police to do so, Zimmerman has this exchange: Dispatcher: "OK, he's just walking around the area..." Zimmerman: "...looking at all the houses."<br />
<br />
Now, we in the outside world know that <a href="http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/07/trayvon-martins-involvement-in-local-burglaries-covered-up-by-media-school-police-prosecutors.html" target="_blank">Trayvon was an accomplished burglar</a>, but that evidence never made it in the trial, and Zimmerman wouldn't have known about Trayvon's criminal history (although, arguably, he and the rest of the neighborhood watch team and HOA leadership should have been told by Trayvon's father about Trayvon's history of fighting, drug use and school suspensions when Trayvon moved into Trayvon's father's girlfriend's house). Instead, we have only what Zimmerman observed about Trayvon's <u>behavior</u>. Note that absolutely nothing in the transcript of Zimmerman's phone call to the police indicates Zimmerman thought Trayvon was suspicious either (1) because he was black, or (2) because he was wearing a hoodie. Trayvon was suspicious because of his <u>behavior</u>, i.e., wandering around in the rain looking at houses rather than quickly and directly walking home.<br />
<br />
Under these circumstances, Mr. Saletan's article argues Zimmerman's "<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17.984375px;">Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar." </span>This was not a mistake of the "factually inaccurate" type. Trayvon's behavior that night most definitely suggested he was a burglar.<br />
<br />
According to Saletan, "Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot." So instead of following someone acting like a burglar, and possibly preventing another <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-defense-rests-closing-statements-start-tomorrow//#more" target="_blank">Olivia Bertalan-type "hot" burglary</a>, according to Saletan (and most of the rest of the MSM) Zimmerman should have sat in his car, lost sight of Trayvon and let the crime happen. Pussification, pure and simple.<br />
<br />
Finally, according to Saletan, "<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17.984375px;">Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin." </span>Wrong! It is <u>Trayvon </u>who should have known he was acting suspiciously. It is <u>Trayvon </u>who should have acted politely when confronted by any resident of the gated community seeing him wandering around in the rain looking at houses rather than walking directly and diligently back to his father's girlfriend's house. It is Trayvon who should have politely explained himself to Zimmerman, and should have known that politely explaining himself - as a new "resident" - to his neighbors, when he was walking around outside in the rain, was the appropriate and civilized thing to do. Instead, Trayvon's warped gang/thug culture brain decided to sucker punch Zimmerman. <br />
<br />
Had Trayvon appreciated and abided by the customs and behaviors of civilized men, Zimmerman never would have shot him. Zimmerman did abide by the customs and traditions of civilized men - he protected his family and his neighborhood from a stranger who was objectively acting like a burglar.<br />
<br />
Saletan ends his article with this line: "<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17.984375px;">And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.</span>" Wrong again. Obviously, you don't shoot first and ask questions later, but you do act like an American, a civilized man, and confront people acting suspiciously in your neighborhood. Your neighbors should expect this of you, and you should expect this of them. When <u>you </u>are acting suspiciously, you should act like an American, a civilized man, acknowledge that your behavior might look suspicious, and explain yourself politely if confronted.<br />
<br />
We know Trayvon was a <a href="http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/trayvon-martin-shooting-a-year-of-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/" target="_blank">drug user</a> with a history of violent crime and burglary. We know - and the statistics amply support this - that Trayvon was highly likely to commit more crimes of violence in his "new" neighborhood. Perhaps if Trayvon had been arrested for any of his previous crimes, instead of having those crimes covered up to <a href="http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/07/trayvon-martins-involvement-in-local-burglaries-covered-up-by-media-school-police-prosecutors.html" target="_blank">fraudulently manipulate a school's crime statistics</a>, perhaps if his parents had taught him better, he never would have encountered George Zimmerman. But Trayvon made all the mistakes that night. Zimmerman is a hero who took up the burden of defending his neighbors when the police proved ineffective. He happened to stop Trayvon's budding crime career. While it is a tragedy that Trayvon died so young and now does not have the opportunity to turn his life around, the statistics predict he wouldn't have, and would have victimized more innocent people. Had Zimmerman been black (wait, <a href="http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/5/10/george_zimmerman_law.html" target="_blank">he is black</a>), you never would have heard of this case, just like you've never heard of the <a href="http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/23037003/article-Mableton-teens-linked-to-gang-are-accused-in-beating-death?" target="_blank">beating death of Joshua Chellew</a>. Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-81473042312574496772013-07-11T14:36:00.005-07:002013-07-15T10:23:46.534-07:00The true facts about the George Zimmerman trialFor those following the George Zimmerman trial, now that the evidence is in (though in some cases, improperly excluded) here is what happened:<br />
<br />
After smoking weed with his friends, Trayvon left his father’s girlfriend’s home (where Trayvon was staying only because his mother kicked him out of her home for getting into too many fights) to walk to the store in the rain to buy the ingredients for the drug cocktail “Lean,” which is made by mixing Robitussin DM with the two items Trayvon had purchased, Arizona Watermelon fruit juice cocktail (not iced tea as falsely reported by most media) and Skittles. Trayvon’s facebook postings demonstrate his prior use of, and knowledge of how to make “Lean.”<br />
<br />
On his way back to his father’s girlfriend’s house, Trayvon began casing this new neighborhood (he had only been there for 10 days) still in the rain. George Zimmerman was in his car getting ready to leave to the store (not on neighborhood watch patrol) when he noticed Trayvon acting suspiciously. Zimmerman knew of at least two recent burglaries in his neighborhood committed by black male youths, including a harrowing break in at the home of Olivia Bertalan, who was home alone with her baby when two black male teenagers broke into her home and stole her camera and laptop. It was this episode that led Zimmerman to form a Neighborhood Watch Program and receive training by local police.<br />
<br />
While in his car, Zimmerman called the non-emergency number for the police, as he’d been trained to do, to report on Trayvon’s suspicious behavior. Trayvon saw Zimmerman in the car on the phone and circled the car menacingly, then abruptly ran away. Zimmerman reported this to the police, “Shit, he’s running.” The police dispatcher then asked Zimmerman, “He’s running? Which way is he running?” Then Zimmerman got out of his car, followed Trayvon for a bit in order to answer the police dispatcher’s question. Then the dispatcher asked Zimmerman, “Are you following him?” Zimmerman said “Yeah.” The dispatcher then said “OK, we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman then said “OK” and STOPS FOLLOWING TRAYVON.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, Trayvon told Rachel Jeanteal over his cell phone that he’s being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker.”<br />
<br />
The police dispatcher next asked for Zimmerman’s exact location so he can meet the police, who were on their way. Zimmerman wandered around looking for a street sign then heads back to his car. As Zimmerman was walking back to his car, Trayvon jumped out in front of Zimmerman, and said “You got a problem?” Zimmerman said no. Trayvon then said, “You do now” and cold cocked Zimmerman in the nose, breaking his nose and knocking him down. Trayvon then jumped on top of Zimmerman and began smashing Zimmerman’s head repeatedly into the concrete path. For about 40 seconds, Zimmerman yelled for help. Several people heard Zimmerman’s screams, and some called 911.<br />
<br />
While Trayvon was raining down blows on Zimmerman’s head, Zimmerman’s jacket rode up revealing his concealed carry pistol, properly holstered and properly loaded in compliance with all laws and training. Trayvon saw the gun and told Zimmerman, “you’re gonna die tonight motherfucker.” Trayvon reached for the gun, but Zimmerman pulled it out first and shot Trayvon in his chest, center mass, as he was trained to do. The bullet pierced Trayvon’s heart and he died within minutes. The police arrived momentarily. Zimmerman readily admitted he shot Trayvon, raised his hands above his head and told the police where his gun was holstered on his body. Zimmerman was handcuffed and taken to the police station where he spent several hours fully cooperating with the police. All police officers who testified said that 100% of the evidence was 100% consistent with Zimmerman’s story. When a police investigator (falsely) told Zimmerman there is a videotape of the whole incident, Zimmerman says “Thank God.” The police released Zimmerman with no charges filed.
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-51455802043393457092010-11-04T12:23:00.000-07:002010-11-04T12:26:40.160-07:00My post-election analysisAs everyone knows, I am the Chairman of the Endorsements Committee of Atlas PAC. Here is my post-election analysis.<br /><br /><br />The Republican wave swept across the eastern half of the country, only to stop abruptly at the Rocky Mountains. Despite disappointing Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Washington, Alaska (likely) and here in California, the Republican victories throughout the nation were historic. <br /><br /><br />Nationwide Results<br /><br />Before the election, my main hope was for Republicans to pick up more House seats than the 54-seat pickup in 1994. If that happened, there would be no way the Mainstream Media could spin the election as anything other than a historic repudiation of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda. <br /><br />Republicans picked up at least 60 House seats, making this the biggest Republican pickup election since 1938, when America started to figure out the “New Deal” was a “Raw Deal.” (The Democrat advantage was so huge in 1938 that the Republicans’ 81-seat pick-up that year still left them in the minority by 93 seats.) Republicans will have their largest number of seats in the House (over 239, with 10 races still to be decided) since 1949. If Republicans manage to pick up 8 of those 10 undecided seats, it will be the largest Republican House presence since 1931.<br /><br />Included among the Republican pick-ups was Allen West of Florida, the only U.S. Congress candidate Atlas PAC endorsed outside of California. He will be a super-star. Look for him on the national stage in the years to come.<br /><br />Republicans picked up six Senate seats, including Atlas PAC-endorsed John Boozman of Arkansas, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Ron Kirk of Illinois (Obama’s old seat!) and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. Also victorious were Atlas PAC-endorsed Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina. Say it with me: Senator Rubio! Senator Paul!<br /><br />Despite these notable and important victories, other Senate races were a disappointment, especially those west of the Rockies. Republicans lost close races in Colorado, Nevada and Washington. We might be stuck with Queen Murkowski from Alaska, who will no doubt caucus with the Democrats. A Democrat running as a conservative won in West Virginia. Less close, but thought to have a chance to go Republican, were Senate races in Connecticut and Delaware. Here in California, Carly Fiorina did worse than expected against Barbara Boxer.<br /><br />Many professional pundits have blamed the Tea Party for these losses. If only Republicans had run “moderates,” they tell us, Republicans would have taken control of the Senate. Nothing could be further from the truth! The blame lies exclusively, 100%, with establishment RINO Republicans. The establishment never got behind Tea Party candidates, even after they won Republican primaries. With establishment Republican support, rather than active opposition, Tea Party candidates should have easily won Alaska, Colorado, Nevada and Washington (giving Republicans 50 seats right there) and would have been much more competitive in Delaware and Connecticut. <br /><br />If the Republican establishment had their way, we would have RINO Senators Specter, Crist and Grayson instead of Senators Toomey, Rubio and Paul. We should vastly prefer a Senate with only 46 principled conservative Republicans to a Senate of 50 or 51 “Republicans” with 10 or so RINOs in charge, tarnishing our message and voting with the Democrats.<br /><br />The lesson here is that we must work extremely hard the next two years to rid the Republican establishment of RINOs such that the Tea Party and the Republican establishment become one unified conservative force. This election has already done much to purge RINOs from positions of power in the Republican Party. The Senate and House Republicans will be led by principled conservatives. I have no doubt that in 2012, when Obama and many more “red state” Democrat Senators are up for re-election, conservative Republicans will sweep to control of the Presidency, Senate and House.<br /><br /><br />California Results<br /><br />If a perfect storm hit the rest of the country, a “reverse polarity” perfect storm hit California. We had a weak RINO gubernatorial candidate on the top of our ticket; someone with no political record, no coherent (let alone conservative) message, and no grass roots support who spent $170 million of her own money. We tried that already (Schwarzenegger). Our down-ticket nominees were nearly as bad. For Lieutenant Governor and Insurance Commissioner, we had Abel Maldonado and Mike Villines, two turn-coat RINOs who (along with Anthony Adams) voted with the Democrats last year for the largest tax increase in California history. These weaknesses were simply too much for our actual conservative state-wide candidates Tony Strickland, Damon Dunn, and Mimi Walters.<br /><br />On the state propositions, Californians once again demonstrated their utter lack of common sense. While voting to require a 2/3 majority for any “fee” increases (Prop. 26) we also voted to remove the 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget (Prop. 25). While voting to preserve business tax cuts (Prop. 24) and against a car tax increase (Prop. 21) we also voted to increases costs on businesses by not suspending AB32 (Prop. 23).<br /><br />In the Assembly, Atlas PAC-endorsed candidates did extremely well. Atlas PAC endorsed the following successful candidates: Dan Logue (3rd), Tim Donnelly (59th), Curt Hagman (60th), Mike Morrell (63rd), Jim Silva (67th), Allan Mansoor (68th), Don Wagner (70th), Jeff Miller (71st), Chris Norby (72nd), and Diane Harkey (73rd). While these Assemblymen will be in the minority, and without the protection of a 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget, with the election of this freshman class, the Republicans in the Assembly will become more conservative, more principled and the Democrats will own California’s impending fiscal implosion. With the House of Representatives firmly in control of conservative Republicans, don’t expect the Federal government to bail out California. Perhaps then, Californians will finally realize the folly of electing Democrats.<br /><br />While California voted to return to the Carter-era 1970s (because the economy was so great back then), Republicans did extremely well in Governor and Legislative races in other states. While lamentable that California voters are not as sane, this is incredibly important nationally because state governments draw redistricting lines after the 2010 census results. Look for conservative low-tax states, like Texas and Florida, to gain several House seats while insane high-tax states, like California and New York, will lose seats as their residents have voted with their feet. This should have the effect of boosting the GOP House majority even more in 2012.<br /><br /><br />Local Results<br /><br />Atlas PAC-endorsed candidates had many significant victories in City Council races: Matt Harper (Huntington Beach), Jeff Lalloway (Irvine), Mark McCurdy (Fountain Valley), Robert Ming (Laguna Niguel), Jim Righeimer (Costa Mesa), Tom Tait (Anaheim Mayor) and Scott Voigts (Lake Forest). <br /><br />The school children did not fare so well. While Nancy Padberg and Marcia Milchiker won seats on the South Orange County Community College District, Kevin Muldoon came up 1.6 points short to a union hack who will no doubt give away the store. If you live in the Capistrano Unified School District, put your children in private school. The teachers union successfully recalled fiscal conservatives Mike Winsten and Ken Maddox and defeated Larry Christensen. Look for lavish salaries and benefits for teachers and other education bureaucrats, and that much more contempt for any accountability for actually, you know, teaching.<br /><br />The biggest disappointment of the night was Van Tran coming up short in his bid to unseat Loretta “the Vietnamese are coming to get us” Sanchez. That such a good and principled man as Van Tran could lose to such an obnoxious race-baiter like Loretta Sanchez shows that we still have a lot of work to do. Fortunately, redistricting comes before the 2012 election. With the passage of Proposition 20, the new lines will be drawn by an independent, non-partisan commission. When that happens, hopefully Sanchez’s currently gerrymandered district will be ripe for a Republican takeover. <br /><br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br />House Republicans will have to push a specific, conservative agenda and turn Obama into the “President of no.” I don’t expect Obama to move to the center like Bill Clinton. Obama is a principled socialist. Clinton was in politics for the ladies.<br /><br />Look for the new Congress to pass an extension of the current income tax and capital gains tax rates, and Obama to veto it. After everyone’s taxes go up in the middle of the recession, look for Obama’s approval rating to hit the 30s. As long as Republicans stay on message, keep passing conservative bills daring Obama to veto, and a Reagan-like leader emerges as our candidate for President, happy days will be here again come 2012.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-38779392885975491712010-08-26T14:08:00.000-07:002017-06-27T16:44:15.682-07:00Islam, the Ground Zero Mosque, and MulticulturalismI'm generally in agreement with everything Andrew McCarthy has to say about Islam. The basic tenets of Islam are an affront to the Judeo-Christian values of Western Civilization. Our values are better, produce better stuff, greater knowledge of the universe, and happier and healthier people. And fewer violently killed people.<br />
<br />
It is only because of the dogma of multiculturalism - i.e., the belief that all cultures are equal - has been so force-fed on us that any thinking person does not understand Islam is very bad for non-muslims. This is obviously not true, and anyone who actually lives by significant numbers of people of an inferior foreign culture knows this to be true. People without this experience - those in ethnically and culturally monochrome countries or areas (Scandinavia comes to mind)- are more vulnerable to believing in multiculturalism than those with direct, observational knowledge of its falsity. <br />
<br />
Multiculturalism is believed without, or in spite of, evidence because people want to believe it. Wouldn't it be nice if the only true differences between Islam and mainstream U.S. culture was the food we each eat, the clothes we each wear, the wacky ways we each pray, the music and art we like and produce, the languages we speak - you know, culture? Then, when we mingle with muslims, we'll be exposed to new and different "culture" - like going to a French movie or something.<br />
<br />
But we differ from Islam in fundamental values in incompatible ways. We believe men and women are socially and politically equal. We believe women who are raped are victims and the rapists should be severely punished, not the other way around. We believe everyone may freely proselytize their religion and we tolerate the decisions of individuals who change or abandon religions. Those who hold different values than these cannot "coexist" in peace with us. It's the "C" part in that stupid "Coexist" bumper sticker that is the problem. <br />
<br />
Which brings me to the Ground Zero Mosque. Don't patronize me, lefties. It's a deliberate poke in the eye, a symbol of conquest and victory. A symbol to muslims that the 9/11 terrorists did a GOOD THING and should be praised rather than condemned.<br />
<br />
Now, let's analyze that last sentence. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244406/ground-zero-thought-experiment-andy-mccarthy">Andrew McCarthy's counter-factual</a> is a good place to start. But let's go further. What would Christians around the world be expected to say, and do, if a similar atrocity was committed by a small (allegedly) group of ultra-fundamental, violent "crusaders" against muslims? Now, take whatever it is you believe would be the appropriate reaction of "mainstream" Christians to such an act of terror as 9/11 if committed by Christians in the name of Jesus against muslims (I hope you say something like, "profusely apologize, openly, loudly and often condemn the acts and terrorists, and cooperate fully with muslims looking to track down - within Christian communities - those who assisted the terrorists and those who hold the same sympathies) and ask yourself, are muslims around the world saying and doing the same things you would expect of Christians in the same situation? <br />
<br />
If you say "yes" then you must believe it would be perfectly appropriate for mainstream Christians - leaders of large congregations - to openly question whether the atrocity was a Jewish conspiracy, or ask what muslims had done to cause such intense hatred by Christians, to call for the murder of any muslim who ridiculed Jesus in a cartoon, etc. Now imagine if a full 10% of the Christian community did not condemn the terrorist acts, but openly lauded them and called for more.<br />
<br />
Back to "mainstream" Islam. No, muslims around the world are not acting the way we would expect Christians to act if a 9/11-type terror attack was committed by Christians lauding Jesus against muslims. Are the "vast majority" of muslims peace-loving people without a jihadi bone in their bodies? Not a relevant question. The relevant question is - in this war we are fighting against the 10% radical jihadi strain of muslims, which side are the other 90% of muslims on, ours or the jihadis? Put another way, when it comes down to real action and real decisions - up to and including taking up arms - which side will the majority of muslims be on?Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-59381993704932809112010-02-09T16:12:00.000-08:002010-02-09T17:20:39.707-08:00Why does Ayn Rand get so much abuse from the Right?As I am a mere 37 years young, I was not around during the great National Review vs. Ayn Rand battle royale launched by <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp">Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged</a> back in 1957. So when I talk about it, I am entirely talking out of my posterior.<br /><br />But in a larger sense, the continuation of the Ayn Rand/National Review schism mystifies me now that Mr. Buckley has shuffled off this mortal coil and people of my generation are running National Review. Didn't any of THEM read Atlas Shrugged in college?<br /><br />The latest flap is <a href="http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Ayn-Rand%E2%80%94engineer-of-souls-4385">The New Criterion's article</a> supposedly reviewing a recent biography of Ayn Rand. The comments to that article, and the comments to editor Roger Kimball's article about the comments, are fascinating. I have to say that as an admirer of both Ayn Rand and National Review, and not particularly invested in Ayn Rand (not being a card-carrying Objectivist), I have to say that the Ayn Rand defenders have the better argument. Or, I should really say, I have the better argument.<br /><br />Which argument I made in the comments to <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/02/05/one-or-two-thoughts-about-ayn-rand/">Roger Kimball's piece</a> <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/02/05/one-or-two-thoughts-about-ayn-rand/#comment-104">here</a>.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-53435998073699170872009-10-21T14:48:00.000-07:002009-10-21T14:56:00.728-07:00More media bias against Rush LimbaughI think what happened to Rush Limbaugh's bid to be a minority owner of the Rams is appalling and those who caused it and/or aided and abetted it are evil. Rush can defend himself, and has admirably, but I still want to give him a little help. So when reading Yahoo! sports, I came across <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AklcgM9xcT2M8YjKLr5P9WZDubYF?slug=jc-directsnap102009&prov=yhoo&type=lgns">this article</a> styled as a lament that false quotations attributed to Rush distracted from the "real" debate on things Rush actually said. <br /><br />The article, however, is yet another smear, making up "facts" out of whole cloth. I got pissed and wrote the following email to the article's author, Jason Cole:<br /><br /><br />So let me get this straight. <br /><br />You assume that Rush Limbaugh - a man with a team of professional media watchers who help him assemble material for a three-hour show 5 days a week for 20 years, who pay particular attention to media bias - did absolutely no research in coming to the conclusion that the sports writing media were biased in favor of a black quarterback, and gave him credit for achievements he didn't deserve (*cough* OBAMA *cough*), because Mr. Limbaugh did not contact any of your 17 arbitrarily selected sports writers, even though their own written material/articles are available for public viewing? And you further support your assumption because Mr. Limbaugh hasn't responded to an email sent a day earlier?<br /><br />You write: "So apparently, Limbaugh made an assumption based on no research about sports writers and how we think."<br /><br />This is not even REMOTELY "apparent" from the "facts" you cite. Your article is another smear, and from this obvious smear I conclude that you are part of the left-wing bias problem in all media, including sports media. For "proof" of this clear bias, I cite Jay Nordlinger's October 5, 2009 column "Safe-Zone Violation!" which can be found here: <br /><br /><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc4NzJkMjVkOTg1M2UyMjZlYzM0YmJiYzY4YWQzYjY=">http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc4NzJkMjVkOTg1M2UyMjZlYzM0YmJiYzY4YWQzYjY=</a><br /><br />As further proof of YOUR left-wing bias, I cite your inclusion in your article, wholly out of context, of Mr. Limbaugh's quote "The NFL often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." You describe Mr. Limbaugh as characterizing THE ENTIRE NFL this way, like the NFL is just some outlet for gang bangers to get their rocks off, kinda like Midnight Basketball. This is totally false. Mr. Limbaugh was describing a penalty called against a Chargers player for taunting a Patriots player that cost the Chargers the game. On Wednesday, October 16, 2009, Mr. Limbaugh posted the entire transcript of that segment of his show including the comment, on his website: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/the_classless_nfl_culture_.guest.html">http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/the_classless_nfl_culture_.guest.html</a><br /><br />A REAL reporter would have linked to the entire segment and asked his readers to decide what they thought of that comment in the context in which it was made. That would have been a real, you know, DEBATE that your article supposedly calls for. I suspect you do not want to have such a debate, and your crocodile tears lamenting that there was no "debate" is simply an excuse for NOT HAVING A DEBATE. If you really want to have a debate, please write an article explaining why you think anything Mr. Limbaugh has ACTUALLY said is racist. Do not quote a line out of context, mischaracterize it, and shuffle off leaving the clear implication that YOU THINK the debate would leave you and your readers concluding that Mr. Limbaugh is a racist.<br /><br />You're a coward.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-48075652927722902702009-09-29T15:53:00.000-07:002009-09-29T16:44:41.254-07:00What is "greed"?Daily Kos is apparently accusing Democrat Senators who voted against a "public option" for health insurance as "greedy." Which got me to thinking:<br /><br />To the left, "greed" is the desire to keep one's own property and/or the desire to create more wealth. Apparently, "greed" is also the absence of the desire to take property from one American and give it to another American to whom it does not belong. This is not greed. Greed is the desire to obtain another's property without paying for it what the owner/creator will freely accept.<br /><br />Properly understood, greed only exists on the left. Conservatives should level the "greed" charge at liberals every time they propose a government program to take money from one American and give it to another American to whom it does not belong. <br /><br />Liberals will respond: "We can't be greedy because we aren't taking the money for ourselves. We're giving it to the poor, oppressed, underprivileged, etc." Yea yea. Who gets paid to do the transferring? Isn't that just like a "commission" like those "greedy" traders on Wall Street charge?Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-28131225349640105472009-08-11T17:58:00.000-07:002009-08-11T18:02:27.672-07:00My thoughs, distilled, on religion<a href="http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=2451&cpage=1#comment-10376">Here's a comment</a> I left on a recent blog post at <a href="http://secularright.org/wordpress/">Secular Right</a>. I suppose it sums up my thoughts on religion and the religious in a brief, readable (hopefully) manner. Any comments would be appreciated.<br /><br /><br />Kelly at #2 above asks:<br /><br />“‘I must respect religion.’<br /><br />Come again? Tolerate it, yes, you do have to do that. But respect it? Why?”<br /><br />I didn’t see anyone try to answer the question, though I’m sure somewhere on this website there has been a lively discussion of this particular topic. Let me try my own hand at it.<br /><br />For centuries, many, many very smart people have been religious and have engaged in many, many deep thoughts, discussions, writings, etc. about the topic. To discount that entire body of human thought based on the evidence and arguments any single individual can accumulate in a lifetime, even a very smart, diligent individual (which I’m sure everyone writing for this blog and commenting on this blog post presumes himself to be), I think is too hubristic. Smart and diligent individuals might disagree with these past centuries of thinkers, but I think it prudent to give them respect. (This is not to say that all religious people, or all religions, deserve equal respect.)<br /><br />On the other hand, one thing that annoys me about the overly religious, like the idol-wielding crowd that is the subject of this post, but more so the smart conservatives generally on the side of good and righteousness, is their certainty. Just as centuries of thinkers and writers have argued in favor of religion, so have many centuries of thinkers and writers, especially since the scientific revolution, argued against the existence of religion. Moreover, any reasonably intelligent person should be able to see that the history of generally accepted human knowledge has moved from religious explanations of observable phenomena to scientific explanations based on observations, hypotheses of regular natural processes, predictions, and repeated confirmations of those predictions. There aren’t too many people who honestly think that a necklace of enchanted animal bones will stop bullets. Even scientific breakthroughs of massive utility for centuries, like Newtonian mechanics, have been shown inaccurate.<br /><br />Yet with all these centuries of demonstrated failure of religion to explain observable phenomena, and the demonstrated success of the scientific method for discovering useful knowledge, many smart people are still darn sure there is a God, He is of the nature and disposition their particular religion dictates He is, and revel in the fact that they need no “proof” of this because it is a matter of “faith.”<br /><br />I guess that makes me an “agnostic” but any prudent person (in my opinion) is agnostic, to some degree, about everything (and for each thing, a different level of agnosticism depending on the available evidence).Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-89390435180003020502009-06-30T16:29:00.000-07:002009-06-30T17:15:47.718-07:00California Court of Appeal rebukes Great Park Corporation and its Chairman, Larry AgranThis is an actual "Ben's Law" moment - <span style="font-style:italic;">i.e.</span>, where Ben made law. <br /><br />I and my firm, <a href="http://www.enterprisecounsel.com/">Enterprise Counsel Group</a>, represent Steven Choi and Christina Shea, two members of the Irvine City Council and, therefore, directors of the Orange County Great Park Corporation. Unfortunately, directors Choi and Shea are in the minority. The opposing bloc of Democrats - Larry Agran, Beth Krom and Sukhee Kang - control both the Irvine City Council and the Great Park Corporation Board.<br /><br />The Great Park Corporation has had a notoriously difficult time finding a qualified CEO - four different CEOs in its first four years, each with prior connections to Irvine City politics. For years, Christina Shea and another former director, Richard Sims, have tried to get the Corporation to hire a professional, qualified and <span style="font-style:italic;">independent</span> CEO. In mid-2007, the Corporation's controlling bloc finally bowed to public pressure and began what it styled as a true nationwide search for a professional CEO. The Corporation hired a professional recruiter, paid her nearly $20,000, and received approximately 150 resumes from all across the country and some foreign countries.<br /><br />However, the selection process was always controlled by Larry Agran and his political allies. Accordingly, of those 150 candidates, the "search committee" returned only one for the entire Board to interview. That candidate, Kurt Haunfelner, eventually turned down the job. However, shortly after he turned down the job, the L.A. Times ran a story disclosing that Mr. Haunfelner's brother was a former aide to Larry Agran. Agran had not disclosed his relationship with Mr. Haunfelner's family to Choi or Shea.<br /><br />The search committee's second choice was an existing Irvine City staffer, Rod Cooper. He quickly withdrew his name from contention.<br /><br />Choi and Shea wondered publicly why the Great Park Corporation spent $20,000 for a nationwide search when the search returned two finalists both with existing ties to Larry Agran. They demanded to see all 150 resumes and all documents concerning the search. The Great Park Corporation refused. Beth Krom made a motion on January 10, 2008:<br /><br /><blockquote>that the board ratify and affirm our intent that the ad hoc search committee should maintain the confidence of the identity and personal information, including resumes, of candidates for the Great Park CEO position until such time as a recommendation of a candidate is made to the board and then, only as to that specific candidate being recommended.</blockquote><br /><br />The resolution passed 7-1, with Shea the only "no" vote (Choi had to leave for a personal appointment before the vote).<br /><br />Choi and Shea sued to enforce their rights as directors to inspect all the CEO search documents. The day before the hearing, the Great Park Corporation capitulated, agreeing to give Choi and Shea access to every document they requested and a continuing obligation to allow Choi and Shea to inspect any and all future documents generated or received.<br /><br />Having prevailed in enforcing their basic rights as public servants, Choi and Shea sought to recover their attorneys' fees from the Great Park Corporation. Incredibly, the trial court denied their (<span style="font-style:italic;">i.e.</span>, my) motion. The trial court found that Choi and Shea hadn't achieved their goals in the litigation - an absurdity - and had done the public no good, merely viewing the documents in a closed room.<br /><br />For most people, this needs no rebuttal. The public benefits when elected officials have access to basic information to do their jobs, whether it is behind closed doors or not. Does the public not benefit when Congress oversees the CIA in closed-door, Top Secret meetings?<br /><br />Anyway, <a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G040823.PDF">the California Court of Appeal just corrected this injustice</a>.<br /><br />This is an important victory for democracy here in Orange County, throughout the state, and definitely for the Great Park Corporation. If Choi and Shea had to bear the expense of a lawsuit to enforce their basic rights to see all the relevant documents and information they felt necessary to make an informed vote on who to hire as the Corporation's CEO, they could not long afford to do their jobs. Only the independently wealthy, willing to pay for expensive litigation to enforce basic rights inherent in their elected positions, would or could ever run for political office. Moreover, Agran <span style="font-style:italic;">et al.</span> would surely continue to deny Choi and Shea - and any other political opponent - access to basic information, knowing they could not afford continuous lawsuits to enforce their basic rights. Without this victory, neither Choi or Shea, nor any other Agran opponent, would ever see a Great Park Corporation document ever again.<br /><br />Hopefully, this stinging rebuke will cause Irvine voters to finally throw Agran out of office.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-7309056941871754932009-03-09T16:07:00.000-07:002009-03-09T16:15:18.466-07:00Obama has plunged the Dow just as far as BushLet me record some numbers here that should enlighten.<br /><br />At its peak on October 9, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 14,164.53.<br /><br />On Election Day, November 3, 2008, the Dow closed at 9,625.<br /><br />This equals a <span style="font-weight:bold;">32% drop</span>.<br /><br />Today, the Dow closed at 6,547.05.<br /><br />This equals a <span style="font-weight:bold;">32% drop</span> from the day of Obama's election.<br /><br />There is no question that Bush and the Congresses during his 8 years did not prevent the easily preventable housing and banking crisis. However, the market has shown absolutely no confidence that Obama can or will fix the problem. This was the Bush/Barney Frank/Christopher Dodd recession. It is now Obama's recession/depression.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-22298926532849061412009-03-05T17:16:00.000-08:002009-03-05T17:57:37.321-08:00Proposition 8 was an amendment, not a revisionToday, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case filed by disgruntled busybodies arguing that the people of California's passage of Proposition 8 - an amendment to the California Constitution banning gay marriage - was itself unconstitutional. The legal question, everyone seems to agree, is whether Proposition 8 was an "amendment" or a "revision" to the California Constitution. What's the difference, you ask? Therein lies the debate.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court has never addressed the issue. However, most everyone I've read seems to be arguing that the difference is <span style="font-style:italic;">substantive</span>. Some argue that the difference depends on just how much the proposed amendment/revision would change the Constitution (i.e., measuring the quantitative change), while others argue that the distinction is whether the particular change is "fundamental" or some other such important word (i.e., measuring the qualitative change).<br /><br />All these arguments are wrong. The amendment/revision distinction is not a substantive question, but a procedural question. Here's the relevant text from the California Constitution regarding amendments and revisions:<br /><br /><br />ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION<br /><br />SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.<br /><br />SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question, within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.<br /><br />SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.<br /><br />SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.<br /><br /><br />Now, combine the above sections with Article 2, Section 8(d), of the Constitution, regarding the initiative process, which reads: "An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect."<br /><br />The distinction between an amendment and a revision is clear: An amendment concerns a single subject, a revision concerns more than one subject. While the people, through the initiative process, may change the Constitution, but are limited to one subject at a time, only the Legislature may propose changes to the Constitution, to be voted on by electors in a single vote, that embrace more than one subject. <br /><br />Proposition 8 was quite obviously limited to a single subject. It was therefore an "amendment" and not a "revision" which is precisely why no one raised this argument <span style="font-style:italic;">before </span>Proposition 8 went on the ballot, when proposed propositions are routinely challenged on the grounds that they concern more than one subject.<br /><br />That's it. End of analysis. Of course, don't bet on the California Supreme Court following the plain and totally obvious meaning of the above Constitutional text.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-51086199351236002002009-03-04T19:18:00.000-08:002009-03-04T20:16:36.026-08:00I want Obama to failI'm weighing in pretty late in the game on the whole "Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail" "scandal." I agree wholeheartedly with Rush - I want Obama's socialist agenda to fail because it will be bad for America. In addition to hopefully getting on Obama's enemies list, I write this post to break down exactly what I mean when I say I want Obama to fail, which isn't exactly what Rush explained he means, and is nothing close to what the MSM and Democrat Party want us to think Rush means.<br /><br />Let me start with what the Democrat Party/MSM (same thing) want you to think Rush means: They assume that you think Obama is trying to bring the USA out of recession, and that the Porkulous bill and all the other socialist plans he has announced are merely the means Obama has chosen. Thus, the Democrats/MSM want you to conclude, Rush wants Obama to fail to achieve his goal of ending the recession. There is a slight allusion there to FDR experimentation – meaning that we cannot be sure these programs will succeed, but we have to take bold action, etc. etc. – although the Democrats/MSM never come out and say there is no guarantee any of this will work. Indeed, Obama – as H.L. Menken long ago described – menaces the people with the imaginary hobgoblin that we will never get out of the recession unless Obama’s Porkulous bill gets passed. The man actually said “never.”<br /><br />Rush, they project, says he wants Obama’s “experiment” to fail because Rush simply wants bad things to happen to America while Obama is President so Republicans will have a better chance of being elected in the future. What a mean, nasty thing for Rush to say (never mind for one second that this is precisely what most Democrats openly said about nearly everything President Bush did – Iraq war anyone?) Rush counters that he wants Obama's agenda to fail, because Rush believes it won't work and will ultimately be bad for America. As I said above, I completely agree. But what Rush is really saying is that we've done this "experiment" many times before, and it never worked, so why try again?<br /><br />(I suppose it's not completely impossible that Obama's policies will help end the recession, rather than prolong it, but that is extremely unlikely, as the Dow Jones average has brutally honestly demonstrated. Regardless, if human nature suddenly changed so drastically that socialism suddenly produced greater economic growth than freedom, I'd still rather live in freedom. But as I touch on below, there are many, many other people who would prefer the opposite - to live in socialism even though it produces lesser economic growth than freedom. And there are two kinds of people who prefer socialism - those who want the power, and those who are perfectly happy as sheep.)<br /><br />Because Obama’s methods have been tried so often before, and because they have failed so miserably every time, it is unlikely that a man as book smart as Obama honestly thinks his policies will cause private sector economic growth. Most likely, he has a different agenda. Obama sometimes says his goal is to end the recession. But many other times, Obama says quite specifically that bringing the USA out of recession is not his goal. This is what I mean when I say I want Obama to fail. I want Obama to fail in his oft stated goal of “spreading the wealth” at the expense of economic prosperity.<br /><br />Obama let his true intentions show on at least two occasions I know off the top of my head. One was with Joe the Plumber. Obama doesn’t care how well Joe the Plumber’s business does, doesn’t care if Joe the Plumber hires more employees or does anything to actually grow the economy. (For those of you who went to public schools, a recession is when the economy shrinks instead of grows. It is a measurement of how productive millions of individual people were compared with the previous quarter. Productivity is measured by one thing and one thing only - how much someone paid for what you did.) Obama wants to change tax policy, not to help the people who will actually grow the economy, but to “spread the wealth.”<br /><br />The second occasion was in an interview about the capital gains tax. The interviewer asked Obama why he wanted to raise the capital gains tax. Obama responded with platitudes about “fairness.” Then, the at least minimally intelligent interviewer told Obama that increasing the capital gains tax rate always results in a decrease in capital gains tax revenue. Obama didn’t care, sticking to his guns that it was good and right to raise the capital gains tax rate even if it resulted in less tax revenue because it was “fair.”<br /><br />I believe Obama does not care one whit whether the USA comes out of this recession, except insofar as it might hurt his chances of re-election and/or the chances of keeping Democrat majorities in the House and Senate. I believe Obama’s first and overriding priority is to bring about a communist/socialist “utopia” in the USA, if possible with him in charge for life á la Ooogo Chavez in Venezuela. He has given me absolutely no indication that he cares one whit about economic freedom and personal responsibility for bad economic choices. He and his Democrat ilk would be much happier once we’ve reached the end of the Road to Serfdom, with poor working stiffs like me carrying them on our backs the rest of the way. If, at the end of the Road, the USA is no more economically productive than Brazil, they won't care at all, as long as they are still the masters. After all, the ruling elite in Brazil still live pretty well.<br /><br />Sorry, Obama, I want you to fail and fail miserably.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-48235890065440488062008-09-04T18:02:00.000-07:002008-09-04T18:32:23.273-07:00An inconvenient truthThe meme about "climate change" causing more and/or stronger hurricanes is still mindlessly repeated and suggested by the MSM. Case in point, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080904/us_time/whydisastersaregettingworse">this article</a> in Time. It sounds like it will cast blame on the current wave of hurricanes in the mid-Atlantic on "climate change." The main point of the article is that the cost of hurricanes is getting worse because more people are living and working in hurricane zones. We can talk later about how federal disaster recovery payments improperly incentivize people to live in hurricane zones.<br /><br />Of particular note in the article is the following from a real climate scientist, Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado:<br /><br /><blockquote>"There has been no trend in the number or intensity of storms at landfall since 1900,"says Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. "The storms themselves haven't changed."</blockquote>Regardless of this uncontradicted testimony confirming that "climate change" has absolutely nothing to do with hurricanes, the Time article still claims:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Increasingly, climate change is on people's minds, and that is all for the better. Even if climate change has not been the primary driver of disaster losses, it is likely to cause far deadlier disasters in the future if left unchecked."</blockquote>Really? What other "far deadlier disasters" will happen? Put another way, if "climate change" has not changed the number or intensity of hurricanes, what, praytell, will be these future weather-related "disasters? What other types of environmental disasters are there?<br /><br />An ice age? That surely is "climate change" but not "global warming" and has nothing to do with "greenhouse gasses." There certainly isn't any scientific consensus (or even bogus concensus) that man's activities are making the planet colder. Or are the enviro-wackos going to start blaming earthquakes and volcanos on "climate change"? Tsunamis? Those are caused by earthquakes or volcanos (or possible meteor strikes).<br /><br />How about rise in sea levels? Oceans rising by .1 millimeter per year aren't going to kill anyone. Desertification of farmland? Maybe. Where's the evidence this has happened so far, after 40 years of supposed runaway global warming? Floods? Great, we'll get more water to prevent desertification of our farmland.<br /><br />Put one final way, why does Al Gore's movie have a hurricane on the poster?Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-82776417201217988322008-08-07T12:34:00.000-07:002019-05-16T14:13:33.491-07:00An eye-opening demonstration that half our nation are freeloadersI came across <a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion?source=side_bar_editors_picks">this article</a> via <a href="http://wizbangblog.com/">Wizbang!</a> and it was so shocking I had to post it. Last year, ExxonMobile earned $40 billion in <em>after tax</em> profits. So how much did it pay in federal income taxes? $30 billion. That's right. $30 billion. But that isn't the shocking part.<br />
<br />
The shocking part of the article is that ExxonMobile's 2007 federal income tax bill was greater than the combined bill of the entire bottom half of all U.S. federal income tax return filers (notice how I didn't say "payers" since many of those in the lower half who file returns don't pay federal income tax at all). In other words, just one corporation paid more in federal income taxes than 50% of the entire tax return-filing population of the United States. Yet ExxonMobile is villianized by the press, Democrats and RINOs alike.<br />
<br />
Two undeniable truths at work here. The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. And a democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government; only as long as it takes 50.1% of the voting population to figure out they can vote themselves a largess out of the public treasury, at the expense of the other 49.9%.<br />
<br />
We'll eventually need a Constitutional amendment prohibiting income and/or wealth redistribution to survive.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-10591002855347472552008-08-01T14:45:00.000-07:002008-08-01T15:03:07.561-07:00Thanks DerbYou should read everything John Derbyshire writes anyway, but I'd like to thank him for putting a puzzle I emailed him in his July Diary "Math Corner" <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjkzYzdmNTAxMDJjN2MwNjk0NjY3ZWE3OTBjYjkwOTQ=">here</a> (it's on page 2, near the end, puzzle #3). Can you solve? (Bragging a bit, I got the puzzle in an easier version and, upon solving it relatively quickly, realized it could be made more difficult but still solvable, and sent that more difficult version in my email to Derb, which is the version he published.)Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-66055892619287961412008-07-31T13:37:00.000-07:002008-07-31T13:47:46.987-07:00Yes, liberals are that stupidIn perusing the Bench Memos blog at National Review Online today, I read <a href="http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjAyMThmZjk3MzY2MzE0ZTQ2MTNlYTBiYzQ5MDE0NTc=">Matthew Frank's post</a> about Obama's days as a lecturer at University of Chicago law school. Without weighing in on the "title inflation" that led a non-tenured lecturer with no scholarly responsibilities to be called "Professor Obama," what struck me about the post was the part on Obama's final exam questions, and specifically (quoting from Mr. Franck's blog post): <br /><br />"In 2003, Obama asked his students to answer whether an equal protection challenge could be brought against an initiative that required a state to be color-blind in public education, hiring, and contracts. I began to wonder whether this was a trick question. There are lively debates about whether the equal protection clause requires a state to be color-blind. But I haven't encountered any serious arguments anywhere that the clause might forbid a state to be color-blind. Or maybe I just don't get out enough and run with the big dogs of constitutional theory."<br /><br />So I wrote the following email back to Mr. Franck, taking me down memory lane, and which I thought I'd memorialize here for posterity (and my loyal 10 readers) :<br /><br /><br />This is to Matthew Franck, in response to his “Prof. Tribe’s Pupil” post at 07/31 12:21 p.m., and specifically the assertions: “But I haven't encountered any serious arguments anywhere that the [Equal Protection] clause might forbid a state to be color-blind. Or maybe I just don't get out enough and run with the big dogs of constitutional theory.”<br /><br />Yes, Matthew, you don’t get out enough. The equal protection argument is based on a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases striking down certain “political structures” that the court thought hindered the ability of minorities to get the government to give them special favors and goodies. The cases started, so far as I can tell, with <em>Hunter v. Erickson</em>, 393 U.S. 385 (1969), continued with <em>Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1</em>, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) and culminated in <em>Romer v. Evans</em>, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).<br /><br />Recall the political scene in the mid-‘90s. Ward Connerly was busy getting anti-race preference measures on the ballots of several western states. Libs opposed them at all costs and measures, including thinking up truly bizarre arguments that such anti-race preference propositions were unconstitutional violations of the Equal Protection clause by imposing unequal “political structures.” At least in liberal circles, these arguments were thought persuasive. They all got a big collective kick in the balls by Judge O’Scannlain in <em>Coalition for Economic Equality</em> [a dysphemism if there ever was one] v. <em>Wilson</em>, 122 F.3d 692 (1997). Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion upheld California’s Proposition 209, which quite plainly and simply banned all race preferences in public employment, education and contracting. Some money quotes:<br /><br />“Proposition 209 amends the California Constitution simply to prohibit state discrimination against or preferential treatment to any person on account of race or gender. Plaintiffs charge that this ban on unequal treatment denies members of certain races and one gender equal protection of the laws. If merely stating this alleged equal protection violation does not suffice to refute it, the central tenet of the Equal Protection Clause teeters on the brink of incoherence.” Id. at 702.<br /><br />“That the Constitution <em>permits</em> the rare race-based or gender-based preference hardly implies that the state cannot ban them altogether.” Id. at 708 (italics in original).<br /><br />“When the people enact a law that says race somehow matters, they must come forward with a compelling state interest to back it up. Plaintiffs would have us also require the people to come forward with a compelling state interest to justify a state law that says that race cannot matter in public contracting, employment, and education. Plaintiffs' counsel went even one step further at oral argument. He urged that ‘[t]he people of the State of California are not entitled to make a judgment as to whether compelling state interests have been vindicated. That is for the courts.’ <em>Au contraire</em>! That most certainly is for the people of California to decide, not the courts. Our authority in this area is limited to deciding whether the interests proffered by the people are sufficient to justify a law that classifies among individuals. If the federal courts were to decide what the interests of the people are in the first place, judicial power would trump self-government as the general rule of our constitutional democracy.” Id. at 708-709.<br /><br />You’ll have to read Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion to try to figure out the Equal Protection argument the plaintiffs were making. I suppose if you were a student of Obama’s and you could craft a coherent argument, you’d get an A. If you tried, but failed, you’d get an A -. If you answered “no” and took Judge O’Scannlain’s view, that merely stating the proposition is enough to refute it, you’d probably fail.<br /><br />A full disclosure note: I was in law school at Notre Dame when Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion came out. One of my classmates was Judge O’Scannlain’s son, Kevin O’ScannlainBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9859249.post-74021276661906318602008-06-13T17:56:00.000-07:002008-06-13T18:00:14.449-07:00God bless the Irish<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/13/europe/union.php">The Irish voted down the EU Constitution - again</a>.<br /><br />The link is to an article in the International Herald Tribune - the New York Times overseas. You can feel the reporter’s anguish in having to report the democratic decision those backward Irish made. The first sentence just drips with condescension. I mean, c’mon people, the EU Constitution was “a painstakingly negotiated blueprint . . . .” Can’t you see how much better off you’d be if you give up your sovereignty?<br /><br />If Obama is elected, we should all move to Ireland.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15699934556022065395noreply@blogger.com0